Octopus Overlords

This topic seems to be spread around multiple threads so here we are...

Trump’s Space Force plan isn’t crazy: Neil deGrasse Tyson

It would be nice if they had reasonable goals that worked in conjunction with private efforts like SpaceX et al.

Next up: Cyber Force!

A midi-chlorian count will get you a job interview.

I honestly like the idea of spending more on space exploration and the ensuing technological advances. I just think it’s a dumb name and I have zero confidence that Trump and Pence could even point out space on a map.

Micro Force sounds neat and applies to Trump in so many ways.

The latest episode of Pod Save the World has a very good discussion of the merits and shortcomings of the Space Force proposal.

We should just change the name of NASA to Space Force. That way the rednecks won't feel bad about spending money on it.

Is NASA a bad word to the orange dipshit? Why doesn’t he just spend the cash on an already established organization that has been putting stuff in space for freakin’ decades?

Where do I sign up to become a Space Cadet? Do I get credit for time served?

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:15 pm Is NASA a bad word to the orange dipshit? Why doesn’t he just spend the cash on an already established organization that has been putting stuff in space for freakin’ decades?

I think NASA'a work on climate science has tainted it to those who are skeptics.

Trump personally seems to be okay with NASA.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 9:15 pm Is NASA a bad word to the orange dipshit? Why doesn’t he just spend the cash on an already established organization that has been putting stuff in space for freakin’ decades?

Eisenhower was adamant that NASA be a CIVILIAN space agency. The military-industrial complex would have loved to own the whole bailiwick. If the Trumpelos have their way, it eventually will.

Personally I don’t like the idea and here’s why:

NASA does so much more with less it’s not even funny. When a coworker of mine tells her friends who work in Defense how much our missions cost, they are stunned. They can’t believe we can operate so cheaply. It’s almost like our missions are round off errors in their budgets.

Secondly NASA missions spread the money over so many institutions. From universities to private contractors, even foreign partners like the CSA, ESA, or JAXA.

Put that money and mission responsibility in the hands of the military and it will be funneled to the lucky few who have the lobbying power to drive funding their way. Say goodbye to collaboration and university research.

So no. Hell no.

Have Earth and Water Force given their thoughts yet? I'd support this if all these agencies could come together and create some type of Mecha-Shiva to combat giant monsters.

Is Trump also a Flat-Earther?

Have none of you seen Moonraker ?

Fair point. Although I would like to point out that America does not need to build defenses against Richard Kiel anymore.

I'm all for space exploration as much as the next guy, but how about we throw some money at cyber-defense and preventing Russian interference before going to Mars.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:25 am I'm all for space exploration as much as the next guy, but how about we throw some money at cyber-defense and preventing Russian interference before going to Mars.

Why? Nothing happened. And the real problem is an alien invasion can happen with *NO WARNING*.

It's a dumb idea. Any "Space Force" is best served under the Air Force and the existing branch structure. Adding yet another armed service to compete for resources just compounds buereaucracy and redundant infrastructure spending.

I mean I know bigger government and blank checks are all the rage but do we really need this?

Oh, and it won't replace NASA. Space Force, in whatever form, will be a military force. NASA will remain civilian.

That is until Space Force poaches all NASA's budget and talent. Then NASA will just be a museum.

malchior wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:40 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 8:25 am I'm all for space exploration as much as the next guy, but how about we throw some money at cyber-defense and preventing Russian interference before going to Mars.

Why? Nothing happened. And the real problem is an alien invasion can happen with *NO WARNING*.

Build that space wall!

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:06 am I mean I know bigger government and blank checks are all the rage but do we really need this?

If we don't replace NASA with Space Force, how will Trump take credit for all future space discoveries and accomplishments?

wonderpug wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:14 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:06 am I mean I know bigger government and blank checks are all the rage but do we really need this?

If we don't replace NASA with Space Force, how will Trump take credit for all future space discoveries and accomplishments?

He will rename it MASA (Make America Spacey Again) and sell hats on his website.

Not to mention this is the same guy that gilds his apartment ceilings with gold. Excuse me if I don't have a lot of confidence in how he decides to spend money.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:06 am It's a dumb idea. Any "Space Force" is best served under the Air Force and the existing branch structure.

That makes no sense. There is no air in space!

coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:12 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:06 am It's a dumb idea. Any "Space Force" is best served under the Air Force and the existing branch structure.

That makes no sense. There is no air in space!

I support diversification if we're doing this because it will take an entirely different set of training, rules, and equipment. It's not like the Air Force can just retrofit a jet fighter and stick a pilot in there. There would be some natural crossover - like the Navy with carriers - but I'm quite fine with this being an agency with its own agenda.

Let the Army focus on ground operations.
Let the Marines focus on amphibious operations.
Let the Coast Guard focus on coastal operations.
Let the Navy focus on open water operations.
Let the Air Force focus on sky operations.
Let the Space Corp focus on vacuum operations.

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:06 am Let the Space Corp focus on vacuum operations.

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:06 am

coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:12 am

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:06 am It's a dumb idea. Any "Space Force" is best served under the Air Force and the existing branch structure.

That makes no sense. There is no air in space!

I support diversification if we're doing this because it will take an entirely different set of training, rules, and equipment. It's not like the Air Force can just retrofit a jet fighter and stick a pilot in there. There would be some natural crossover - like the Navy with carriers - but I'm quite fine with this being an agency with its own agenda.

The Air Force already contracts with all the aerospace companies that would put weapons in space. They train and employ all the pilots, is there are any, that would fly into space. They have space suits, they work with NASA.

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:06 am Let the Army focus on ground operations.
Let the Marines focus on amphibious operations.
Let the Coast Guard focus on coastal operations.
Let the Navy focus on open water operations.
Let the Air Force focus on sky operations.
Let the Space Corp focus on vacuum operations.

Serious or not serious? Because Marines don't focus strictly on amphibious operations, the Coast Guard doesn't man any of the litoral combat ships, the Navy isn't limited to the open water, the Army has pilots, and the Air Force has ground troops. And they all have intelligence services.

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:46 pm Have none of you seen Moonraker ?

The documentary starring Chekov and Jaws?

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:49 pmSerious or not serious?

Serious-ish. I know they bleed out all over each other, but I was trying to make very tight generalizations without spending hours researching all the different ops they perform.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:49 pm

Paingod wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:06 am Let the Army focus on ground operations.
Let the Marines focus on amphibious operations.
Let the Coast Guard focus on coastal operations.
Let the Navy focus on open water operations.
Let the Air Force focus on sky operations.
Let the Space Corp focus on vacuum operations.

Serious or not serious? Because Marines don't focus strictly on amphibious operations, the Coast Guard doesn't man any of the litoral combat ships, the Navy isn't limited to the open water, the Army has pilots, and the Air Force has ground troops. And they all have intelligence services.

In my day, there was the legion. Just the legion, only the legion. And it worked fine.

Our military would be far more efficient with less layers of bureaucracy. There is no real reason the navy/coastguard/marines can't be a single entity, and it wasn't until after WW2 that the airforce became separated from the army. Since effective military operations are often a product of combined arms, the fewer heads involved in planning, the better.

From where I'm sitting, the real reason for creating a Space Force is that it's a super-flashy bullet point for Trump's presidential legacy that, once enacted, would be very difficult for the next administration (assuming there is one) to unravel. The last thing that Trump wants is for someone to do to him what he's doing to Obama. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Max Peck wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:27 pm From where I'm sitting, the real reason for creating a Space Force is that it's a super-flashy bullet point for Trump's presidential legacy that, once enacted, would be very difficult for the next administration (assuming there is one) to unravel. The last thing that Trump wants is for someone to do to him what he's doing to Obama. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

"Buuut Vladimir has one! I want one too!"

"We don't know for certain what it is, and there is no way to verify it," she added. "But Russian intentions with respect to this satellite are unclear and are obviously a very troubling development — particularly when considered in concert with statements by Russia’s Space Force commander, who highlighted that 'assimilate[ing] new prototypes of weapons [into] Space Forces' military units' is a 'main task facing the Aerospace Forces space troops.'"

In the podcast I linked above, they talk about how there may be a good rationale for a unified military command for space, similar to how we have the Strategic Command (for nukes) and Cyber Command (does Barron run this yet?).

But a unified command isn't big or flashy enough, so we're getting an entirely new branch of the military, at much higher cost.

So, what if, hypothetically, Trump gets the funding passed and stays in office long enough to actually get this off the ground ( )? Does it force other powers to respond? Do Russia and China suddenly need to put militaries into space just to avoid giving the US total control of it? Are we potentially militarizing an irrelevant piece of real estate and creating a new arms race in a region without clearly defined borders?

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:31 pm So, what if, hypothetically, Trump gets the funding passed and stays in office long enough to actually get this off the ground ( )? Does it force other powers to respond? Do Russia and China suddenly need to put militaries into space just to avoid giving the US total control of it? Are we potentially militarizing an irrelevant piece of real estate and creating a new arms race in a region without clearly defined borders?

What did they do when Reagan was all about SDI "Star Wars"? I'm sure they would wait and see what comes of it, and if it's not as laughable as it seems, follow suit.

Time might be running out, though. It's hard to image the donkey party going along with this once they overthrow Congress.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:31 pm So, what if, hypothetically, Trump gets the funding passed and stays in office long enough to actually get this off the ground ( )? Does it force other powers to respond? Do Russia and China suddenly need to put militaries into space just to avoid giving the US total control of it? Are we potentially militarizing an irrelevant piece of real estate and creating a new arms race in a region without clearly defined borders?

China does and as noted above, Russia already has a "Space Force."


But it's not like we don't already have military assets in space too. We undoubtedly have killer satellites out there to go along with our countless intel satellites. And this guy, from the Air Force.

NPR

Looks to me more like the Terran Federation's symbol from Blake's 7, but turned 90 degrees.

The Terran Federation, sometimes simply called The Federation, is the primary stellar government featured in the British Blake's 7 science-fiction television series of the late 1970s. It is portrayed as a ruthless, quasi-fascist, totalitarian state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terran_Fe ... ake%27s_7)

So the Space Force is a department of the Air Force the way the Marines are a department of the Navy? And it's basically responsible for things that were already the AF's job?

This is really just a PR stunt and a shuffling of the org chart along with some duplication of effort and budget?

At least Dear Leader is happy.

Probably. He asked for something stupid and useless, and someone figured out how to give it to him without really changing anything other than a few logos.

The idea of a space command has been around for decades. It hasn't been worth the cost, so far. Now we have an administration that is bully on taking war capabilities into space and doesn't care about the budget...so if not now, when? If there is an open conflict between major powers, space will be a theater of operations. I wish they weren't wearing jungle camo uniforms...but it's not like they'll be present on the high battlefield.